Does anyone rely on the specific json published at
licenses.opendefinition.org? This may say something about how careful
to be.

A few people.

is_okd_compliant and is_osi_compliant seem suboptimal names. OKD and
OSI aren’t equivalents and “compliant” is vague; only “approved” would
be unambiguous. Can these be changed? Noticed via
https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/12

AGREED: change to od_approved, osi_approved

ACTION: [ML+RP] check with users

What does domain_content/data/software actually mean? Whatever the
license creator says? What informed wisdom agrees with? What people
do? What bodies have approved licenses? Noticed via
https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15

If UK OGL is really intended to be used with software – also via
https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15 – should we not be
recommending vetting by OSI? And/or depending on the meaning of
“domain” per above, maybe not marking it as a software license.

RP: They really should go via OSI then

How are versions expected to be reflected in json published at
licenses.opendefinition.org? Right now, they aren’t. If were used in
building a chooser, as suggested on the site, what would choosing say